Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC189. As a result, the Board decided:
(a) to confirm the requirement in IAS 39* that "the fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature (eg a demand deposit) is not less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that the amount could be required to be paid", and
(b) consequently, that a demandable liability cannot qualify for fair value hedge accounting for any time period beyond the shortest period in which the counterparty can demand payment.
The Board noted that, depending on the outcome of its discussions in other projects (principally Insurance (phase II), Revenue Recognition, Leases and Measurement), it might reconsider these decisions at some time in the future.
* see paragraph 49

 . Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC188. For these reasons, the Board concluded that demandable liabilities should not be included in a portfolio hedge on the basis of the expected repayment date of the total balance of a portfolio of demandable liabilities, ie including expected rollovers or replacements of existing deposits by new ones. However, as part of its consideration of comments received on the Exposure Draft, the Board also considered whether a demandable liability, such as a demand deposit, could be included in a portfolio hedge based on the expected repayment date of the existing balance of individual deposits, ie ignoring any rollovers or replacements of existing deposits by new deposits. The Board noted the following.
(a) For many demandable liabilities, this approach would imply a much earlier expected repayment date than is generally assumed for risk management purposes. In particular, for chequing accounts it would probably imply an expected maturity of a few months or less. However, for other demandable liabilities, such as fixed term deposits that can be withdrawn only by the depositor incurring a significant penalty, it might imply an expected repayment date that is closer to that assumed for risk management.
(b) This approach implies that the fair value of the demandable liability should also reflect the expected repayment date of the existing balance, ie that the fair value of a demandable deposit liability is the present value of the amount of the deposit discounted from the expected repayment date. The Board noted that it would be inconsistent to permit fair value hedge accounting to be based on the expected repayment date, but to measure the fair value of the liability on initial recognition on a different basis. The Board also noted that this approach would give rise to a difference on initial recognition between the amount deposited and the fair value recognised in the balance sheet. This, in turn, gives rise to the issue of what the difference represents. Possibilities the Board considered include (i) the value of the depositor's option to withdraw its money before the expected maturity, (ii) prepaid servicing costs or (iii) a gain. The Board did not reach a conclusion on what the difference represents, but agreed that if it were to require such differences to be recognised, this would apply to all demandable liabilities, not only to those included in a portfolio hedge. Such a requirement would represent a significant change from present practice.
(c) If the fair value of a demandable deposit liability at the date of initial recognition is deemed to equal the amount deposited, a fair value portfolio hedge based on an expected repayment date is unlikely to be effective. This is because such deposits typically pay interest at a rate that is significantly lower than that being hedged (eg the deposits may pay interest at zero or at very low rates, whereas the interest rate being hedged may be LIBOR or a similar benchmark rate). Hence, the fair value of the deposit will be significantly less sensitive to interest rate changes than that of the hedging instrument.
(d) The question of how to fair value a demandable liability is closely related to issues being debated by the Board in other projects, including Insurance (phase II), Revenue Recognition, Leases and Measurement. The Board's discussions in these other projects are continuing and it would be premature to reach a conclusion in the context of portfolio hedging without considering the implications for these other projects.

Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC186. The Board noted that this issue is related to that of how to measure the fair value of a demandable liability. In particular, it interrelates with the requirement in IAS 39† that the fair value of a liability with a demand feature is not less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that the amount could be required to be paid. This requirement applies to all liabilities with a demand feature, not only to those included in a portfolio hedge.
* see IAS 39, paragraph AG76

† see IAS 39, paragraph 49
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC187. The Board also noted that:
(a) although entities, when managing risk, may schedule demandable liabilities based on the expected repayment date of the total balance of a portfolio of accounts, the deposit liabilities included in that balance are unlikely to be outstanding for an extended period (eg several years). Rather, these deposits are usually expected to be withdrawn within a short time (eg a few months or less), although they may be replaced by new deposits. Put another way, the balance of the portfolio is relatively stable only because withdrawals on some accounts (which usually occur relatively quickly) are offset by new deposits into others. Thus, the liability being hedged is actually the forecast replacement of existing deposits by the receipt of new deposits. IAS 39 does not permit a hedge of such a forecast transaction to qualify for fair value hedge accounting. Rather, fair value hedge accounting can be applied only to the liability (or asset) or firm commitment that exists today.
(b) a portfolio of demandable liabilities is similar to a portfolio of trade payables. Both comprise individual balances that usually are expected to be paid within a short time (eg a few months or less) and replaced by new balances. Also, for both, there is an amount-the base level-that is expected to be stable and present indefinitely. Hence, if the Board were to permit demandable liabilities to be included in a fair value hedge on the basis of a stable base level created by expected replacements, it should similarly allow a hedge of a portfolio of trade payables to qualify for fair value hedge accounting on this basis.
(c) a portfolio of similar core deposits is not different from an individual deposit, other than that, in the light of the 'law of large numbers', the behaviour of the portfolio is more predictable. There are no diversification effects from aggregating many similar items.
(d) it would be inconsistent with the requirement in IAS 39 that the fair value of a liability with a demand feature is not less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that the amount could be required to be paid, to schedule such liabilities for hedging purposes using a different date. For example, consider a deposit of CU100 that can be withdrawn on demand without penalty. IAS 39 states that the fair value of such a deposit is CU100. That fair value is unaffected by interest rates and does not change when interest rates move. Accordingly, the demand deposit cannot be included in a fair value hedge of interest rate risk-there is no fair value exposure to hedge.

 .Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC185. The Board noted that under the first approach in paragraph BC182 (designating an overall net position), an issue arises if the entity has liabilities that are repayable on demand or after a notice period (referred to below as 'demandable liabilities'). This includes items such as demand deposits and some types of time deposits. The Board was informed that, when managing interest rate risk, many entities that have demandable liabilities include them in a portfolio hedge by scheduling them to the date when they expect the total amount of demandable liabilities in the portfolio to be due because of net withdrawals from the accounts in the portfolio. This expected repayment date is typically a period covering several years into the future (eg 0-10 years hence). The Board was also informed that some entities wish to apply fair value hedge accounting based on this scheduling, ie they wish to include demandable liabilities in a fair value portfolio hedge by scheduling them on the basis of their expected repayment dates. The arguments for this view are:
(a) it is consistent with how demandable liabilities are scheduled for risk management purposes. Interest rate risk management involves hedging the interest rate margin resulting from assets and liabilities and not the fair value of all or part of the assets and liabilities included in the hedged portfolio. The interest rate margin of a specific period is subject to variability as soon as the amount of fixed rate assets in that period differs from the amount of fixed rate liabilities in that period.
(b) it is consistent with the treatment of prepayable assets to include demandable liabilities in a portfolio hedge based on expected repayment dates.
(c) as with prepayable assets, expected maturities for demandable liabilities are based on the historical behaviour of customers.
(d) applying the fair value hedge accounting framework to a portfolio that includes demandable liabilities would not entail an immediate gain on origination of such liabilities because all assets and liabilities enter the hedged portfolio at their carrying amounts. Furthermore, IAS 39* requires the carrying amount of a financial liability on its initial recognition to be its fair value, which normally equates to the transaction price (ie the amount deposited).
(e) historical analysis shows that a base level of a portfolio of demandable liabilities, such as chequing accounts, is very stable. Whilst a portion of the demandable liabilities varies with interest rates, the remaining portion-the base level-does not. Hence, entities regard this base level as a long-term fixed rate item and include it as such in the scheduling that is used for risk management purposes.
(f) the distinction between 'old' and 'new' money makes little sense at a portfolio level. The portfolio behaves like a longterm item even if individual liabilities do not.

Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC183. Some of those who commented on the Exposure Draft favoured designation of the overall net position in a portfolio that contains assets and liabilities. In their view, existing asset-liability management (ALM) systems treat the identified assets and liabilities as a natural hedge. Management's decisions about additional hedging focus on the entity's remaining net exposure. They observe that designation based on a portion of either the assets or the liabilities is not consistent with existing ALM systems and would entail additional systems costs.
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC184. In considering questions of designation, the Board was also concerned about questions of measurement. In particular, the Board observed that fair value hedge accounting requires measurement of the change in fair value of the hedged item attributable to the risk being hedged.
Designation based on the net position would require the assets and the liabilities in a portfolio each to be measured at fair value (for the risk being hedged) in order to compute the fair value of the net position. Although statistical and other techniques can be used to estimate these fair values, the Board concluded that it is not appropriate to assume that the change in fair value of the hedging instrument is equal to the change in fair value of the net position.

BC181. The Board also noted that if the items in the hedged portfolio are subject to different amounts of prepayment risk, they may fail the test in paragraph 78 of being similar and the related requirement in paragraph 83 that the change in fair value attributable to the hedged risk for each individual item in the group is expected to be approximately proportional to the overall change in fair value attributable to the hedged risk of the group of items. The Board decided that, in the context of a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk, these requirements could be inconsistent with the Board's decision, set out in the previous paragraph, on how to incorporate the effects of prepayment risk. Accordingly, the Board decided that they should not apply. Instead, the financial assets or financial liabilities included in a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk need only share the risk being hedged.
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
Designation of the hedged item and liabilities with a demand feature
BC182. The Board considered two main ways to overcome the issue noted in paragraph BC176(b). These were:
(a) to designate the hedged item as the overall net position that results from a portfolio containing assets and liabilities. For example, if a repricing time period contains CU100 of fixed rate assets and CU90 of fixed rate liabilities, the net position of CU10 would be designated as the hedged item.
(b) to designate the hedged item as a portion of the assets (ie assets of CU10 in the above example), but not to require individual assets to be designated.

BC174. In the light of these concerns, the Board decided to explore whether and how IAS 39 could be amended to enable fair value hedge accounting to be used more readily for portfolio hedges of interest rate risk. As a result, in August 2003 the Board published a second Exposure Draft, Fair Value Hedge Accounting for a Portfolio Hedge of Interest Rate Risk, with a comment deadline of 14 November 2003. More than 120 comment letters were received. The amendments proposed in this second Exposure Draft were finalised in March 2004. Paragraphs BC135A-BC136B and BC175-BC220 summarise the Board's considerations in reaching conclusions on the issues raised.
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.


Scope
BC175. The Board decided to limit any amendments to IAS 39 to applying fair value hedge accounting to a hedge of interest rate risk on a portfolio of items. In making this decision it noted that:
(a) implementation guidance on IAS 39* explains how to apply cash flow hedge accounting to a hedge of the interest rate risk on a portfolio of items.
(b) the issues that arise for a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk are different from those that arise for hedges of individual items and for hedges of other risks. In particular, the three issues discussed in paragraph BC176 do not arise in combination for such other hedging arrangements.
* see Q&Amp;A F.6.1 and F.6.2
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
The issue: why fair value hedge accounting was difficult to achieve in accordance with previous versions of IAS 39
BC176. The Board identified the following three main reasons why a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk might not have qualified for fair value hedge accounting in accordance with previous versions of IAS 39.
(a) Typically, many of the assets that are included in a portfolio hedge are prepayable, ie the counterparty has a right to repay the item before its contractual repricing date. Such assets contain a prepayment option whose fair value changes as interest rates change. However, the derivative that is used as the hedging instrument typically is not prepayable, ie it does not contain a prepayment option. When interest rates change, the resulting change in the fair value of the hedged item (which is prepayable) differs from the change in fair value of the hedging derivative (which is not prepayable), with the result that the hedge may not meet IAS 39's effectiveness tests.* Furthermore, prepayment risk may have the effect that the items included in a portfolio hedge fail the requirement† that a group of hedged assets or liabilities must be "similar" and the related requirement§ that "the change in fair value attributable to the hedged risk for each individual item in the group shall be expected to be approximately proportional to the overall change in fair value attributable to the hedged risk of the group of items".
(b) IAS 39‡ prohibits the designation of an overall net position (eg the net of fixed rate assets and fixed rate liabilities) as the hedged item. Rather, it requires individual assets (or liabilities), or groups of similar assets (or similar liabilities), that share the risk exposure equal in amount to the net position to be designated as the hedged item. For example, if an entity has a portfolio of CU100 of assets and CU80 of liabilities, IAS 39 requires that individual assets or a group of similar assets of CU20 are designated as the hedged item. However, for risk management purposes, entities often seek to hedge the net position. This net position changes each period as items are repriced or derecognised and as new items are originated. Hence, the individual items designated as the hedged item also need to be changed each period. This requires de- and re-designation of the individual items that constitute the hedged item, which gives rise to significant systems needs.
(c) Fair value hedge accounting requires the carrying amount of the hedged item to be adjusted for the effect of changes in the hedged risk.** Applied to a portfolio hedge, this could involve changing the carrying amounts of many thousands of individual items. Also, for any items subsequently de-designated from being hedged, the revised carrying amount must be amortised over the item's remaining life.†† This, too, gives rise to significant systems needs.
* see IAS 39, paragraph AG105

† see IAS 39, paragraph 78

§ see IAS 39, paragraph 83

‡ see IAS 39, paragraph AG101

** see IAS 39, paragraph 89(b)

†† see IAS 39, paragraph 92
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC177. The Board decided that any change to IAS 39 must be consistent with the principles that underlie IAS 39's requirements on derivatives and hedge accounting. The three principles that are most relevant to a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk are:
(a) derivatives should be measured at fair value;
(b) hedge ineffectiveness should be identified and recognised in profit or loss;§ and
(c) only items that are assets and liabilities should be recognised as such in the balance sheet. Deferred losses are not assets and deferred gains are not liabilities. However, if an asset or liability is hedged, any change in its fair value that is attributable to the hedged risk should be recognised in the balance sheet.
§ Subject to the same materiality considerations that apply in this context as throughout IFRSs.
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
Prepayment risk
BC178. In considering the issue described in paragraph BC176(a), the Board noted that a prepayable item can be viewed as a combination of a non-prepayable item and a prepayment option. It follows that the fair value of a fixed rate prepayable item changes for two reasons when interest rates move:
(a) the fair value of the contracted cash flows to the contractual repricing date changes (because the rate used to discount them changes); and
(b) the fair value of the prepayment option changes (reflecting, among other things, that the likelihood of prepayment is affected by interest rates).
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC179. The Board also noted that, for risk management purposes, many entities do not consider these two effects separately. Instead they incorporate the effect of prepayments by grouping the hedged portfolio into repricing time periods based on expected repayment dates (rather than contractual repayment dates). For example, an entity with a portfolio of 25-year mortgages of CU100 may expect 5 per cent of that portfolio to repay in one year's time, in which case it schedules an amount of CU5 into a 12-month time period. The entity schedules all other items contained in its portfolio in a similar way (ie on the basis of expected repayment dates) and hedges all or part of the resulting overall net position in each repricing time period.
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.
BC180. The Board decided to permit the scheduling that is used for risk management purposes, ie on the basis of expected repayment dates, to be used as a basis for the designation necessary for hedge accounting. As a result, an entity would not be required to compute the effect that a change in interest rates has on the fair value of the prepayment option embedded in a prepayable item. Instead, it could incorporate the effect of a change in interest rates on prepayments by grouping the hedged portfolio into repricing time periods based on expected repayment dates. The Board noted that this approach has significant practical advantages for preparers of financial statements, because it allows them to use the data they use for risk management. The Board also noted that the approach is consistent with paragraph 81 of IAS 34, which permits hedge accounting for a portion of a financial asset or financial liability. However, as discussed further in paragraphs BC193-BC206, the Board also concluded that if the entity changes its estimates of the time periods in which items are expected to repay (eg in the light of recent prepayment experience), ineffectiveness will arise, regardless of whether the revision in estimates results in more or less being scheduled in a particular time period.
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.

BC173. The Exposure Draft of proposed improvements to IAS 39 published in June 2002 did not propose any substantial changes to the requirements for hedge accounting as they applied to a portfolio hedge of interest rate risk. However, some of the comment letters on the Exposure Draft and participants in the roundtable discussions raised this issue. In particular, some were concerned that portfolio hedging strategies they regarded as effective hedges would not have qualified for fair value hedge accounting in accordance with previous versions of IAS 39. Rather, they would have either:
(a) not qualified for hedge accounting at all, with the result that reported profit or loss would be volatile; or
(b) qualified only for cash flow hedge accounting, with the result that reported equity would be volatile.
Editorial note: Inserted by Amendments to IAS 39, March 2004 with effect for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. An entity shall apply the amendments to an earlier period when it applies IAS 39 (as revised in 2003) and IAS 32 (as revised in 2003) to that period.

(iii) the option to fair value assets and liabilities does not extend to portions of assets and liabilities.
(f) the Board is considering separately whether to make an amendment to IAS 39 to facilitate fair value hedge accounting for portfolio hedges of interest rate risk. The Board believes that that is a better way to address the concerns raised about symmetry with risk management systems than permitting the designation of internal contracts as hedging instruments.
(g) the Board decided to permit an option to measure any financial asset or financial liability at fair value with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss. This enables an entity to measure matching asset/liability positions at fair value without a need for hedge accounting.
BC171. The Board reaffirmed that it is a fundamental principle of consolidation that any accounting effect of internal contracts is eliminated on consolidation. The Board decided that no exception to this principle should be made in IAS 39. Consistently with this decision, the Board also decided not to explore an amendment to permit internal derivative contracts to be designated as hedging instruments in hedges of some forecast foreign currency transactions, as is permitted by SFAS 138 Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities.
BC172. The Board also decided to clarifythat IAS 39 does not preclude hedge accounting for transactions between entities in the same group or transactions between segments in individual or separate financial statements of those entities or reporting segments because they are not internal to the entity (ie the individual entity or segment).

Fair Value Hedge Accounting for a Portfolio Hedge of Interest Rate Risk
Background

BC170. In considering these comments, the Board noted that the following principles apply to consolidated financial statements:
(a) financial statements provide financial information about an entity or group as a whole (as that of a single entity). Financial statements do not provide financial information about an entity as if it were two separate entities.
(b) a fundamental principle of consolidation is that intragroup balances and intragroup transactions are eliminated in full. Permitting the designation of internal contracts as hedging instruments would require a change to the consolidation principles.
(c) it is conceptually wrong to permit an entity to recognise internally generated gains and losses or make other accounting adjustments because of internal transactions. No external event has occurred.
(d) an ability to recognise internally generated gains and losses could result in abuse in the absence of requirements about how entities should manage and control the associated risks. It is not the purpose of accounting standards to prescribe how entities should manage and control risks.
(e) permitting the designation of internal contracts as hedging instruments violates the following requirements in IAS 39:
(i) the prohibition against designating as a hedging instrument a non-derivative financial asset or non-derivative financial liability for other than foreign currency risk. To illustrate, if an entity has two offsetting internal contracts and one is the designated hedging instrument in a fair value hedge of a non-derivative asset and the other is the designated hedging instrument in a fair value hedge of a non-derivative liability, from the entity's perspective the effect is to designate a hedging relationship between the asset and the liability (ie a non-derivative asset or non-derivative liability is used as the hedging instrument).
(ii) the prohibition on designating a net position of assets and liabilities as the hedged item. To illustrate, an entity has two internal contracts. One is designated in a fair value hedge of an asset and the other in a fair value hedge of a liability. The two internal contracts do not fully offset, so the entity lays off the net risk exposure by entering into a net external derivative. In that case, the effect from the entity's perspective is to designate a hedging relationship between the net external derivative and a net position of an asset and a liability.